DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to amendment received on 04/20/26. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are examined herein.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has figures and other text and is not on a separate sheet in proper U.S. format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the limitation “at least one vent is configured so as to render that least one cellular energy-absorbing insert only partially distinguishable through the at least one vent when the helmet is observed” requires structurally of the helmet. What materials or constructions would be considered to be “only partially distinguishable”, it is unclear what would or would not read on this structurally. Further, it is unclear how the protective layer “crosses and closes” the vent, but allows for partially distinguishability of the energy insert through the vent, how can a insert be viewed if the protective layer crosses and closes the vent? It is unclear what structure is being claimed of the protective layer based upon the limitations as claimed. Finally, it is unclear what “the outside” is referring to and there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "bottom of the at least one recess”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson (US 2015/0047110) in view of Pritz (US 2023/0069274).
In regard to claim 1, Chilson teaches a helmet (helmet: 100) comprising: at least a cellular energy-absorbing insert (second shock absorbing insert: 126); a foam liner comprising at least one recess shaped to accommodate the at least one cellular energy-absorbing insert (foam liner/shock absorbing liner: 130 and figures 4 and 5); the foam liner also comprises at least one vent (vents: 109, figures 1, 2, 4 and 5).
However, Chilson fails to teach a protective layer that is a continuous layer that crosses and closes the at least one vent and is configured so as to render the at least one cellular energy-absorbing insert only partially distinguishable through the at least one vent when the helmet is observed form the outside.
Pritz teaches a helmet (helmet: 10) with a protective layer that is a continuous layer that crosses and closes the at least one vent and is configured so as to render the at least one cellular energy-absorbing insert only partially distinguishable through the at least one vent when the helmet is observed form the outside (protective layer one or 40, 42 or 44: paragraphs 0045-0046 is attached to the bottom surface of the upper layer: figure 7).
The protective layer 40, 42 or 44 of Pritz covering the vent of Chilson would be attached to the bottom outer layer, which would be foam layer 130 (see figure 4 of Chilson).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet of Chilson with the attached vent cover/protective layer of Pritz, since the helmet vent of Chilson provided with a vent cover/protective layer attached to the bottom of the vent opening along foam liner (130) would provide a vent that can be opened and closed based upon comfort and air flow desired.
In regard to claim 2, Chilson teaches wherein the cellular energy-absorbing insert comprises a plurality of interconnected open cells configured to absorb energy by plastic deformation in response to a longitudinal compressive load applied to said cells (cellular energy-absorbing insert: 126, paragraph 0014 detailing honeycomb structure of insert).
In regard to claim 3, Chilson teaches wherein each cell comprises a tube having sidewall/s and a longitudinal axis, and the cells are connected to each other through their sidewalls (cellular energy-absorbing insert: 126, paragraph 0014 detailing honeycomb structure of insert).
In regard to claim 4, the combined references teach wherein the protective layer is attached to the foam liner in correspondence of bottom of the at least one recess (the protective layer: 40, 42 or 44 attached to the bottom surface of the upper layer of Pritz (figure 7), the protective layer 40, 42 or 44 covering the vents of Chilson would be attached to the bottom outer layer, which would be the foam layer 130 of Chilson).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet of Chilson with the vent cover/protective layer of Pritz, since the helmet vent of Chilson provided with a vent cover/protective layer would provide a vent that can be opened and closed based upon comfort and air flow desired.
In regard to claim 5, the combined references teach wherein protective layer is a sheet (Pritz teaches the protective layer: 40, 42 or 44 are panels/sheets, paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet of Chilson with the vent cover/protective sheet layer of Pritz, since the helmet vent of Chilson provided with a vent cover/protective sheet layer would provide a vent that can be opened and closed based upon comfort and air flow desired.
In regard to claim 6, Chilson teaches wherein cellular energy-absorbing insert has synclastic properties (see figures 4 and 5 the cellular insert: 126 is dome shaped, which makes it has synclastic properties).
In regard to claim 7, Chilson teaches wherein the cellular energy-absorbing insert is configured to provide an improved shock absorbing protection as compared with the foam liner (paragraph 0014 detailing honeycomb structure of insert is more shock absorbing than liner 130).
In regard to claim 8, Chilson teaches wherein the foam liner is made of a polymeric expanded foam (foam liner: 130, paragraph 0014 details EPS).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 6-7, and 13-15 of copending Application No. 19/157,363 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a helmet with cellular insert, foam liner, vent and protective layer/insert.
Claim 1 of Current Application:
A helmet comprising: at least a cellular energy-absorbing insert (see line 2 of claim 1 of 19/157,363); a foam liner comprising at least one recess shaped to accommodate the at least one cellular energy-absorbing insert (see lines 3-4 of claim 1 of 19/157,363); the foam liner also comprises at least one vent see lines 3-4 of claim 1 of 19/157,363); a protective layer attached to the foam liner (see claim 4 of 19/157,363), wherein the protective layer is a continuous layer that crosses and closes the at least one vent (see claims 6 and 7 of 19/157,363); and is configured so as to render the at least one cellular energy-absorbing insert is only partially distinguishable through the at least one vent when the helmet is observed from the outside (see claim 1 lines 7-8 detailing that the vent is partially closed and claim 8 detailing micro-holes that would allow for partial visibility).
Claim 2 of the instant application is the same as claim 2 of 19/157,363; Claim 3 of the instant application is the same as claim 3 of 19/157,363; Claim 3 of the instant application is the same as claim 3 of 19/157,363; Claim 4 of the instant application is the same as claim 4 of 19/157,363, except for the different wording “bottom/s of said recess/es” is “bottom of the at least one recess” in the instant application; Claim 5 of the instant application is the same as claim 6 of 19/157,363, except the instant application claim has amended out “layered over the recess of the foam liner; Claim 6 of the instant application is the same as claim 13 of 19/157,363; Claim 7 of the instant application is the same as claim 14 of 19/157,363; Claim 8 of the instant application is the same as claim 15 of 19/157,363.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chilson in view of Pritz fail to teach the limitations as amended into claim 1.
Chilson and Pritz teach the limitations as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571)272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights